The Blue Voice

«Home | Next: Our "press corps" has become a major national disg...»

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Iran and the nuclear issue

Our "press corps" has collapsed to the point that I find reading stuffy military papers a breath of fresh air after reading about the depths of idiocy and weird obsessions that drive our most distinguished political columnists and commentators. The Daily Howler is absolutely right: if we didn't have a press corps like this, you couldn't invent them.

So, for people who care about issues that bore Big Pundits like David Broder, issues like, oh, I don't know, the fact that the Bush administration is preparing to go to war with Iran, you can actually find writers addressing things like that if you can make your way to the US Army Army War College's Web site. For instance: Nuclear Strategy Options and U.S. Foreign Policy Implications by Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy D. Davis (US Army) 03/18/05. (On my Internet Explorer browser, the link to the full paper at the bottom opens up two Adobe screens when I click it, and the paper appears on the second one.) Col. Davis writes about the activities of the AQ Khan nuclear network:

In 2001, as John Pike reports, Khan's career as Pakistan's lead nuclear expert abruptly ended following U.S. warnings of his involvement in proliferation efforts. President Musharraf removed him under the guise of proclaiming financial improprieties yet kept him on as a special advisor. Pakistan was concerned that its clandestine efforts as a non-member of the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] might spurn world opinion against it affecting its access to financial aid. Pakistan was successful in avoiding serious world scrutiny by taking advantage of the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. As reported by Husain Haqqani, a journalist and former advisor to Pakistani prime ministers, Pakistan aided anti-Soviet insurgents against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan by providing staging bases. The United States responded with technical assistance to Pakistan. The ensuing reduction in tensions between Pakistan and the United States facilitated an environment whereby Pakistan could quietly develop its nuclear program. It is ironic the Islamic militancy in Pakistan now claims a role in protecting Pakistan's nuclear program. One could argue here that Pakistan's government is more dangerous to proliferation efforts than that of Iran. These attempts to avoid IAEA scrutiny coupled with Pakistan's overt support of proliferation efforts should have placed the West, distracted by events in Afghanistan, on notice. Connecting the Islamic militancy within Pakistan to the forces within Iran potentially creates an explosive force with which the United States may one day have to contend. If successful, a militant connection will require the United States to reconsider its relationship with Pakistan, increasing tensions with an ally currently supporting U.S. efforts in the war on terror. (my emphasis)

Yes, one could argue "that Pakistan's government is more dangerous to proliferation efforts than that of Iran". Lots of us argued before the invasion of Iraq that Iran was a more serious risk to non-proliferation efforts that Iraq. But the Bush administration didn't let that stop them from creating the disaster we now know as the Iraq War.

More stuff they don't like to mention on FOX News:

Iran's belief in the unfair application of the NPT to itself and other Muslim nations has some merit. It provides political will and national legitimacy for Iran to use all instruments of power to acquire a nuclear deterrent capability. (my emphasis)

And the fact that our press corps usually can't be bothered to write about things like Israel's nuclear arsenal because they're too busy covering the latest Clinton sex rumor cooked up in the heads of thigh-rubbing old men doesn't mean that other people in the world don't think about it:

Considering that estimates of Israeli weapons are in the area of between 100-200 weapons, Iranian security concerns appear to be justified. This aids Iran's position because for Iran and the rest of the Islamic world Israel’s nuclear weapons are a serious security threat. Inaction by the IAEA on the Israeli issue continues to foster perceptions that Israel is above international law and maintains its preeminence at the behest of the United States. This perception will remain among Islamic nations until the United States decides to change it. The West’s aversion to establishing a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East adds negative speculation to Islamic confidence in IAEA ability to protect the Middle East from proliferation. Without this confidence Iran may proceed on its own in search of nuclear options and raises the questions of who and how many more will soon follow. (my emphasis)

I agree with Davis and most other Americans writing about this issue that there is good reason to think Iran's nuclear program is aimed at developing weapons.

But it's distressing to see that so few of those writing about and commenting on the issue even bother to mention how strongly Iran denies such an intention. That part of the situation should be thoroughly discussed, because it's obvious that the Bush administration is Fishing for a Pretext to Squeeze Iran. Juan Cole reasonably asks (in the article I just linked):

If the Supreme Jurisprudent of theocratic Iran has given a fatwa against nukes, if the president of the country has renounced them and called for others to do so, if the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence of a military nuclear weapons program, and if Iran is at least 10 years from having a bomb even if it is trying to get one, then why is there a diplomatic crisis around this issue between the United States and Iran in 2006?

Col. Davis also observes that the Bush administration's policies on nuclear proliferation are hardly optimal:

The United States is quick to point out discrepancies of lesser nations and slow to ensure its own activities are not fraught with contradiction. U.S. actions could be interpreted as control, not leadership. Nonetheless, the NPT has serious flaws in international law when nations do not comply. U.S. slowness to disarm and its decision not to rule out the future of tactical low-yield nuclear weapons provide but two examples. As a result, some Europeans view American policy as a contributor to proliferation and justification for others to desire nuclear weapons. (my emphasis)

But for all of his realism in looking at the US-Iranian conflict, Davis seems not to realize how far-fetched the idea of Iran giving a nuclear weapon to a non-state-controlled terrorism group like Hizbollah really is.

I do like this deadpan, matter-of-fact statement of his, though the obvious meaning to me may not be what Davis intended:

Iran certainly understands the negative political ramifications that would occur if the United States were to unleash nuclear weapons upon it.

Yes, I'm sure Iran's rulers realize that having nuclear weapons unleashed on them would have negative ramifications. And not only political ones.

But Davis is probably saying that the United States would find it politically difficult to unleash nuclear weapons on Iran. Let's all hope that's the case. Especially in light of Seymour Hersh's report that the administration is actively considering using nukes to attack Iran.

But this is an interesting point he raises:

Should the Iranians begin to successfully work with the Europeans a more dangerous threat to U.S. interests would emerge. If they were to convince the International Court of Justice that U.S. activities were violations of state sovereignty and linked the Iranian population's struggles with U.S. imposed sanctions, the Iranian may succeed in fracturing an enduring U.S.-European relationship.

He makes the important point that the EU countries have a more immediate interest in not having Iran acquire nuclear weapons. And therefore it probably doesn't make a lot of sense for the US to be more belligerent about the issue than those more directly threatened:

Now that the European Union is flexing democratic processes to shape the environment,
the United States has taken a caustic approach to its methods. The U.S. attack on the very methods it has fought so hard to instill is contradictory policy and undermines U.S. credibility within the European Union. Strengthening the continuing relationship between the United States and Europe is therefore vital to U.S. security interests as the guarantors of democratic process around the world.

The EU has greater concern for successful negations with Iran than the United States due to proximity to the Iranian WMD launch sites. Harsh treatment of other nation's statesmen in front of world organizations will not force or manufacture what we seek to accomplish internationally in our efforts to ensure peace in the world. If the United States still wishes to be the world’s lead advocate in international law it must build supporting mechanisms to strengthen its approach. Fostering human rights begins with equitable treatment of national representatives despite disagreements in policy and principle. Adherence to international agency decisions such as those made by the World Trade Organization would signal deference to international institutions adding legitimacy and strength to U.S. policy. If the United States shares a portion of its great power with lesser states, those that we assist will provide to us the goals we seek. A lead nation that manages by fear creates conditions fulfilled only when the leader is around. Once distracted, developing nations discard the leader’s policies with disdain for their selfserving directions. The United States must resolve itself to the moral high ground, take responsibility for its own omissions, and once again lead world diplomatic efforts that have served it so well. (my emphasis)

But, but, omigod! Bill Clinton could be lusting after some other woman in his heart!!!

Our American press corps is astonishingly, breathtakingly, incredibly dysfunctional.

posted at 10:26:00 PM by Bruce Miller

| +Save/Share | |